Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

lunduke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 447 posts

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#391

Post by kragen »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #339
kazinator wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1998, Linux was reliable and performant. It just hadn't made inroads into big corporations to give it pointy-haired-boss cred.

In 1998, Linux was still behind SunOS/Solaris in maturity and even if it had been even, Intel x86 hardware wasn't remotely on par with what Sun machines could do.

I was using Linux and Solaris in 1998, and doing things on Solaris was a constant pain compared to doing the same things on Linux. (Sun was still trying to push CDE at that point, for crying out loud.) I compiled KDE and Samba for our Sun and dramatically increased its utility.

There were things that Solaris was better at in 1998: big iron things, NUMA things, fault-tolerance things, what we now call "observability". (I still don't have a good equivalent for pstack on Linux!) But Linux was enormously better at many other things, including, most crucially, networking.

That was about the time the Top500 list started morphing into a list of the top 500 Beowulfs.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#392

Post by kragen »

fancyfredbot wrote: post #166
VectorLock wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you objecting to the word "ratfucking" or the ratfucking itself? As vulgar as it sounds, the word itself has a well established meaning.

Thanks - I didn't know that. I actually find his message less offensive now. I stand by my assessment it's not classy language though.

Perhaps we should base our judgments about the issues under discussion by the plausibility of the claims being made, the evidence supporting them, the likely consequences of different possible courses of action, and our values, rather than whether the proponents of one or another point of view hail from the upper class or the lower class.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#393

Post by kragen »

kick wrote: post #80
monksy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it rather concerning that they're that quick to ban him for voicing dissidence. Was there anyone threatened by his speech?

He has a long history of making statements like this. Anyone showing up for the first time in years only to intentionally and obviously violate rules should be kicked out. I fully agree with the idea that "ethical" licenses aren't free software, but the dude is a terrible actor in this. He violated the rules, and got banned. That's not a bad thing!

I don't see any evidence that he violated the rules; he described Coraline Ada Ehmke as a "toxic loonytoon" as part of his opposition to her ethical beliefs. Whether or not he is correct about that, I don't see how it's a violation of the rules to say so — it's not as if he used a slur against women, white people, or transgender people. Even when he railed against "Marxism" (it's not clear to me whether Ehmke is a Marxist, but certainly some of her supporters are) he didn't use slurs like "commie" or "tankie", despite the bitter hatred of Marxism that his life is oriented around.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#394

Post by speakingcode »

How is this reply from Josh Berkus NOT doing exactly what he accuses ESR of doing?? A directed attack on a person's character riddled with accusations and assumptions about their motive but entirely void of response to any of the points or topics the person brought up, and a dismissive, alienating assertion that the person makes no contribution or adds any value, and their absence will not be felt?

Seems like an attempt to intimidate an opponent and win an argument by making the opponent afraid (or banned) to participate

>>> ESR's “sharp language” is not an attempt to persuade. It is an attempt to intimidate opponents; to “win” an argument by making others afraid to participate. Indeed, even today OSI mailing list composition is entirely folks with enough privilege to be resistant to personal attacks. That's a sad, terrible thing. It's not “free speech” when it's an attempt to shout others down so that they have no voice. It's something else entirely. Further, not one of ESR's points is original or even original to this list. In his absence, not one of the ideas he so “colorfully” expressed will be lost. In the meantime, we're missing the input of so many people who will not participate in OSI because of our tolerance for wholly uncivilized behavior like his posts.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#395

Post by zz9815 »

aeturnum wrote: post #10

From the previous discussion, plorkyeran[1] found the email that they suspect got ESR banned: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.... I'm not familiar with the culture or standards of the OSI but I don't think I'd wanna participate in a community where this kind of engagement is normal, so good for them I suppose? Edit: replaced plorkyeran's account link with their post. I also now notice othe…

One needs to read this, if one assumed that the above-cited e-mail got him banned:

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists....

Seems odd that someone should be banned for life for a fairly tame message that was already automatically filtered (one assumes for the various word choices not the content)...

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#396

Post by speakingcode »

cosmiccatnap wrote: post #178
aeturnum wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think communities have the right to decide on what kind of engagement they want. ESR could be acting within the community standards of OSI, in which case I don't think he should be banned. I also find the way he engages to be more hostile than I'm comfortable with and probably wouldn't want to work an environment where it was the norm.

If you said that at work you would be fired, because nobody can have a civilized conversation with you and no progress can be made. Nobody is stopping him from expressing himself in his personal life but if you are going to bring your crap to work expect there to be consequences.

Where do you work? because in every developer/engineer job I've worked over the past 12 years, in corproate, academic, small business and startup environments, hostility, foul language, heated arguments and even implications of violence run amok. When/if it is appropriate is a delicate and tricky balancing act that requires careful judgement (which is sometimes misplaced), and the nuances are such that no policy (or lack of policy) can adequately accommodate them.

I'm not an expert on government and law, but it is my understanding that due process is rooted in the recognition that circumstances are often more nuanced than laws can accommodate, and so evaluation of the circumstances are necessary for every case.

I'm not saying OSI actions should follow the same due process as criminal courts, but my point is no, saying the things he said at countless companies, corporations, environments, under some context or another, would not result in firing.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#397

Post by threatofrain »

fancyfredbot wrote: post #166
VectorLock wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you objecting to the word "ratfucking" or the ratfucking itself? As vulgar as it sounds, the word itself has a well established meaning.

Thanks - I didn't know that. I actually find his message less offensive now. I stand by my assessment it's not classy language though.

Why does one’s intuition bring up classiness of all values at play....

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#398

Post by aliakhtar »

jshevek wrote: post #352
aliakhtar wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, what's wrong with listing if you have a mental illness? To me, its no different than listing any physical illness you're a survivor of.

I don't see a problem with an individual that discloses a mental illness. I do see a problem with a subculture that celebrates mental illness.

Why? Mental illnesses are not a choice, so its not others will start getting mental illnesses if its celebrated.

But if you're successful despite a mental illness (by any measure of success), its worth celebrating that so others with that condition can see it can be overcome. And it'll help reduce stigma.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#399

Post by yencabulator »

chx wrote: post #365
ofrzeta wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite interesting to read the last paragraph on that page that lists your offenses. "We are now looking forward to Linus Torvalds to be shown the door from the Linux project. He has long steered it abusively and has even been identified on mass media publications as a verbally insulting jerk. Him being a white male, the epitome of exclusivity, is just the cherry on top." That sure sounds like someone on a missio…

First, to quote myself: > Due to repeated Code Of Conduct violations two years ago I was banned from Drupal. This story is known and frankly, not worth a damn discussing it again. It’s only a background. Second, let me state this extremely clearly and forcefully: it was better for the community and at the end of the day, for myself, to ban me at the end of 2016. It is absolutely pointless and a fruitless waste of tim…

> This was a joke.

That makes it worse. Some people's "jokes" are allowed, some are punished by censoring and expulsion. Selective enforcement is a central part of the criticism toward CoCs.

Re: Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond

#400

Post by jshevek »

aliakhtar wrote: post #398
jshevek wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see a problem with an individual that discloses a mental illness. I do see a problem with a subculture that celebrates mental illness.

Why? Mental illnesses are not a choice, so its not others will start getting mental illnesses if its celebrated. But if you're successful despite a mental illness (by any measure of success), its worth celebrating that so others with that condition can see it can be overcome. And it'll help reduce stigma.

You are correct on the benefits of reducing stigma, but that is something else altogether. You response doesn't seem to have anything to do with my statement. Celebrating success is not the same as celebrating mental illness. While discreet thresholds and states exist in mental illness, many exist on a spectrum. The real world consequences of some mental illness are influenced by the choices made by the person. Subcultures which celebrate mental illness often have the effect of enabling the worst forms of irresponsible mismanagement.
Post reply on HN